MaxBuck
SoCal, Baby!
BKB, have I got a website for you ... crystalsRus.comBuckeyeskickbuttocks;964337; said:
Upvote
0
-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter Thump
- Start date
Upvote
0
Bgrad - I've mentioned the book I'm reading a couple times now, but I wanted to get your impressions on something. Again, the book sets forth the prohecies in the Bible and then goes on to outline their fulfillment. I understand you haven't read the book... well, I guess maybe you have - It's called the "the Prophecy Handbook" or some such... I'll get the actual name for ya if you want.... anyway.... I already noted one objection to the book's "proof" that being when it notes that a Prophecy was fulfilled by reference to the Bible itself - I used David and Goliath as an example of what I mean where it is said David prophesized he'd beat Goliath in a certain way, and then later in the Bible, he beats him in that way. To me, that's simply of an outline of a consistency of story, and not 'proof' of prophecy fulfillment.
Well, this AM, I came across something else in the book that confounds me. A prophecy being "fulfilled by eternity" I have no idea what this could possibly mean, and was wondering if you'd be able to shed any light on the issue as you're far more eductated in the academics surrounding Bible interpretation than I.
It seems there was something else I wanted to ask you, but it escapes me now... in any case, any insight you can give me would be appreciated. I'm getting to the point where I am about to dismiss the entire work as a tad ridiculous.
Well, this AM, I came across something else in the book that confounds me. A prophecy being "fulfilled by eternity" I have no idea what this could possibly mean, and was wondering if you'd be able to shed any light on the issue as you're far more eductated in the academics surrounding Bible interpretation than I.
It seems there was something else I wanted to ask you, but it escapes me now... in any case, any insight you can give me would be appreciated. I'm getting to the point where I am about to dismiss the entire work as a tad ridiculous.
Upvote
0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;969821; said:
To me, yes it is a fulfillment of prophesy as I see the books of Samuel as an accurate recordings of what actually did occur--first prophesy, then the event. However, if I suspend my perspective--to whatever extent that is possible--I can appreciate your point.
Of greater interest to me would be how do you respond to the fact that the book of Daniel so accurately predicted political history for centuries after its writing. Or how do you account for the fact that Cyrus is named as a "deliverer" of Judah over 100 years before Judah is even taken into Babylonian captivity, yet alone before the Persians would allow the exiles to return to their land?
Also, one thing to remember about prophesy is that it is not limited to simply predicting future events. Prophesy is any instance where God is speaking through a person. Therefore, when God tells Israel and Judah by speaking through people like Isaiah that he is displeaed with their breaking of His covenant with them, that is still prophesy.
I am not familiar with the phrase "fulfilled by eternity" when regarding prophesy. Could you give me an example of it used by the author as I perhaps would better understand what he means by the phrase. I will also do some research and see what I can find.
Note: I've never read the book
Upvote
0
After visiting a couple of web pages it appears that "fulfilled in eternity" simply means that we should not look for that prophesy to come to fruition within normal human history, but only after God's Kingdom has been established and the eternal judgement of all has occurred.
Now, the big question is which prophesies are fulfilled as such, which is of much debate and controversy because you end up with different theologies defining what it God's kingdom and what is not.
Now, the big question is which prophesies are fulfilled as such, which is of much debate and controversy because you end up with different theologies defining what it God's kingdom and what is not.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I'll try to dig up a specific example for you, but at the moment, I'm getting ready to head off to bed. Thanks for your insight to this point. On the issue of things like Daniel's prophecies, I would say I'm not hostile to the idea of prophecy at all. That is to say, I think there do indeed seem to be people who are able to "predict" the future, as it were. If I'm willing to accept that guys like Edgar Cayce could do it - and I am - then I also accept that Biblical personalities could also. In fact, that's part of the reason I'm reading the book in the first place. But, as should be obvious, I'm trying to pick out (or should I say discern) what prophecy stands up to my level of scrutiny (ie verified by other sources) and which do not. Though, I have no specific examples of either at the moment. I have not yet gotten to Daniel's chapter, though I have some familiarity with his prophecies.
Off the point to some degree, but would you personally only accept those authors who's prophecy is in the Bible, or would a guy like Cayce also be acceptable as a prophet in your way of thinking? Nostradamus?
Off the point to some degree, but would you personally only accept those authors who's prophecy is in the Bible, or would a guy like Cayce also be acceptable as a prophet in your way of thinking? Nostradamus?
Upvote
0
buckeyegrad;969904; said:
Also, I would question that we could call such a thing "fulfilled" at all. Seems to me to be a word choice that assumes the point in question.
Upvote
0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;970500; said:
I do believe that there are others outside of the Bible who have been given visions of the future. Cayce not so much, Nostradamus to some extent. For me though, the question of whether the individuals are prophets of God or prophets of something else is the important one. And of course, there is a test:
You may say to yourselves, ?How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?? If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:21-22).
This of course does not say there are not other prophets, it simply gives the standard used to test those who claim they speak for God.
Upvote
0
Gatorubet
Loathing All Things Georgia
buckeyegrad;970629; said:
I.e., "How you'll know if I made a mistake in prophesying is this - if it is a mistake, it was not me."
Now, I'm not saying that the passage is not valid, but as a "proof" to those who are not operating on faith, it is circular and self serving.
Upvote
0
Gatorubet;970874; said:
Never said it would be a satisfactory answer to those not operating on a Biblical-informed faith. But why would such a person be concerned if a prophet spoke the word of God or the word of someone else (including their own) in the first place?
As for being circular, not really. By definition, God is omniscient and does not lie, so it is an impossibility for Him to be incorrect. Hence if someone says something that turns out to be incorrect, but claims it comes from God, the only logical conclusion is that it did not come from God. That's not circular, it is simple deduction.
Oh, and your paraphrase makes zero sense in the context of that passage. How would a prophet who spoke forth a word that was incorrect all of a sudden claim I'm not the one who spoke it?
Upvote
0
Gatorubet
Loathing All Things Georgia
buckeyegrad;970938; said:
They wouldn't - unless the prophesy was being used to "prove" the truth of the religion or Bible, etc...
You have as a predicate that if it is not true, then it did not come from God's prophet. That is not deduction, unless you have as another predicate an infallible God. Again, we agree as to people of faith, but it is no proof to anyone wanting a logic proof.
I was speaking from God's perspective there, as the author of the prophesy.
Upvote
0
buckeyegrad;970629; said:
That being so, it seems to me those prophecies "fulfilled by prophecy (eternity)" then may or may not actually be prophecy?
Correction - the Book's title is The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook by John F. Walvoord. An example of "fulfilled by eternity:"
So, until the days of trouble come to pass, it's not actually proper to say this prophecy is A) fulfilled by anything and/or B) is even a prophecy at all, in that it might end up being false, and thus not of God. True?
lvbuckeye;971221; said:
What about believers who have sinned without repenting? As adopted in to a royal family goes, that sounds awfully human to me. I'm not trying to start something here, I just am not sure I understand your remark the way you intend it. It seems to me, I should already be in God's family, as He is my Creator and Father.
Upvote
0